Subject:
|
Re: Good by Santa... Hello PC
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2002 20:29:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
289 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim Courtney wrote:
>
> "Kirby Warden" <inourimage@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:GovJGz.87w@lugnet.com...
> > chech this out...
> >
> > http://www.pioneerplanet.com/news/mtc_docs/211967.htm
Didn't come up for me, oh well.
> Give me a break on this PC garbage.
While I agree with certain anti-PC sentiments, I can not totally agree
with the concept.
Things I think are reasonable to take "PC" type attitudes about:
- call people what they what to be called (for example, are you willing
to let people call you variants of your name?), especially if you expect
their respect
- banning certain language in certain private venues is acceptable (we
are being PC in banning a legitimate English verb which conjugates
similarly to "sit" shat for example - though like Chris Weeks, I'm not
totally sure we should be banning it).
> > Medical conditions such as: retard, idiot, dumb, and stupid replaced with
> > words that people haven't yet learned to use in a condescending manner...
Of course some of those labels which originally were accepted medical
labels were used without full understanding of the condition and perhaps
with some condescension in their application. On the other hand, the
"PC" trend is getting out of hand. What I would prefer to see is a push
for concise and reasonably understandable and accurate terms. Calling a
short person "height challenged" is ridiculous (in fact, it changes from
a neutral adjective to a term with value judgment since it assumes that
being short is a challenge compared to being tall). On the other hand,
perhaps I can see a value to "differently abled" instead of "disabled"
since it is removing value judgment (or at least reducing it) and is
designed to challenge us to look at certain classes of people in a new
light of being able to do certain things in life, just not necessarily
the same ones most people can. I would far prefer to see "disabled"
people convincing employers to find useful jobs for them than to rely on
tax dollars to give them a living (and since the former is free market
based, someone whose abilities are such that the cost to provide them a
workspace would be larger than the value of their productivity would
either get a job purely as charity [good], would be forced to take a job
they are more capable of [good], rely on charity [good], or rely on tax
dollars [not so good, but I think I could be convinced that a very small
tax to support an extremely small number of people who fall through the
cracks that applies as it's only discrimination that you have made a
reasonable attempt to find support through some other means could be
acceptable]).
> LOL. 'Hey, look at that differently abled person over there! Ha ha ha!!'
> ;-)
>
> > The Ten Commandments and the Pledge of Alegience removed from public • schools
> > rather than simply rewritten to exclude religion (The Ten Commandments • have
> > a lot of basic wisdom that should be taught and the Pledge of Alegience is
> > good for inspiring patriotism)...
I would find a re-written Ten Commandments even more offensive. Yes,
they do have some value, and I don't object to their being taught in the
right venue. Of course my answer to the whole what can and can not be
taught in school is to eliminate public schools. I'd send my kids to a
school which includes the Ten Commandments in it's education on values
but does so in a way which doesn't use them as a hammer but explains
that they mostly are good advice and one should consider what they say
since they are based on centuries of prior values and have been found to
be a good set of rules for many centuries since they were included in
the Bible. I expect a Catholic school to use them differently.
On the other hand, the Pledge of Allegiance has some problems. It is not
a product of religion, but of government, and is discriminatory. It has
also been used coercively by the government. I think it is reasonable
for a country to ask it's citizens to be patriotic, and perhaps a
customary pledge is even reasonable, but such a pledge must represent
the ideals of the country.
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Good by Santa... Hello PC
|
| "Kirby Warden" <inourimage@msn.com> wrote in message news:GovJGz.87w@lugnet.com... (...) you (...) the (...) Oh geez! Santa is not specifically a part of Christian culture. He's neutral. Both Christians and non-Christians alike have Santa as a part (...) (23 years ago, 25-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
